The US Think They Can Extradite Gary Davis

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 05:55PM

OneOfThem wrote: »

I'm just curious. If the blaspheme law was aggressively enforced. What would be your thoughts on a TOR site that facilitated the criticism of God/religion so that people could do so without being prosecuted?

(I realise this is a bit of a segway from the specific focus of the thread, but I am genuinely curious).

Freedom of expression is different to the selling of Drugs. it's not a like for like crime. What if the site was used to put hit's out on people I highly doubt anyone would have a problem.

beardybrewer · 16-07-2015 05:57PM

For those interested in the Silk Road story: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/silk-road-untold-story/

OneOfThem · 16-07-2015 05:59PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Freedom of expression is different to the selling of Drugs. it's not a like for like crime.

... I'm so tempted. But maybe for another thread/time.

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 06:01PM

OneOfThem wrote: »

... I'm so tempted. But maybe for another thread/time.

Do tell.

martingriff · 16-07-2015 06:01PM

nm wrote: »

He was a moderator of a forum, like the moderators here of this forum. The topics of that forum were for the most part illegal (drugs).

So he's committed no crime here and that's for certain. I would be of the opinion he's committed no crime anywhere really, but America has proven itself not to give a sh*t about little things like other countries laws.

Are boards.ie moderators responsible for the contents of the posts here?

It's shameful that Ireland is even entertaining this.

Yes I would say so.

If boards was used by some people for a plot say to kidnap/kill someone and the mods or boards did nothing to stop it and encouraged it then I would say yes they would and should be prosecuted. I do not think anyone in boards would do this. (Please don't ban me:))

There justification would be the site and all those associated with the site helped the people in there illegal activities by association. You do not have to be the one who pulled the trigger to be guilty and I don't think aspergers should be used as an excuse

enfant terrible · 16-07-2015 06:03PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Donald Trump has pledged if he is elected president he'll build a wall on the Mexican/US border & make the Mexicans build & pay for it & then "make the Mexicans play nice"

What's wrong with that?

16-07-2015 06:03PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Unless they can prove 100% that he broke laws serious enough for him to probably spend a good chunk of the rest of his life in prison then the judge should tell them to **** off.

But sure even criminal cases dealt with here don't have to meet this "prove 100%" requirement. And in extradition cases, they certainly do not have to prove the case "100%" first...before taking him back to prove the case. Amongst EU member states for example, it is normally sufficient to show there is a European Arrest Warrant out, that's the basis on which we have have many parties extradited back to Ireland, both Irish citizens and citizens of other countries. Why on earth would we need to raise the bar and change both criminal law and the law of extradition for this person?

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 06:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But sure even criminal cases dealt with here don't have to meet this "prove 100%" requirement. And in extradition cases, they certainly do not have to prove the case "100%" first...before taking him back to prove the case. Amongst EU member states for example, it is normally sufficient to show there is a European Arrest Warrant out, that's the basis on which we have have many parties extradited back to Ireland, both Irish citizens and citizens of other countries. Why on earth would we need to raise the bar and change both criminal law and the law of extradition for this person?

Aye we use reasonable doubt here.

Means Of Escape · 16-07-2015 06:06PM

end of the road wrote: »

he would have all ready entered the US once convicted as he will be jailed there unless he is sent back to ireland or the illegitimate terror prison

Barred following his release(from his sentence possibly 10 years min at best)

Means Of Escape · 16-07-2015 06:10PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Aye we use reasonable doubt here.

Would you be as supportive if your bank account was cleaned out ?

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 06:11PM

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Would you be as supportive if your bank account was cleaned out ?

?

Ranchu · 16-07-2015 06:20PM

I don't see how anyone could agree with anyone's extradition to another country for a crime committed online. Surely it should be up to the authorities in the country of the persons residence to prosecute.

Means Of Escape · 16-07-2015 06:22PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

?

Reasonable doubt here correct
He will also have his chance to protest and prove his innocence in court in the US
Thing is he knows he hasn't a leg to stand on .
As you said he would have a better chance here
Can't see him being tried here on evidence that is sitting in the US
Besides why should we carry the can for the goon
He knew what he was getting into . His condition is no excuse but it may make him less culpable than the others involved .
Either way he obviously has something to answer for and he should face the music regardless

16-07-2015 06:26PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Aye we use reasonable doubt here.

And the bar is much lower for extradition cases, generally they simply need to show that the person is charged with or convicted of a serious offence in the requesting country - so he won't be extradited simply for the purposes of investigation - and the death penalty does not or will not be applied. They will generally not extradite for political offences.

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 06:27PM

Ranchu wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could agree with anyone's extradition to another country for a crime committed online. Surely it should be up to the authorities in the country of the persons residence to prosecute.

We don't know if it's just related to the SR moderation. Could be other stuff like money for example. I highly doubt it just one charge.

end of the road · 16-07-2015 06:29PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

What's wrong with that?

well for a start, its Donald Trump. he's a nut. second, if he wants the wall he should fund it, or if god forbid elected america should fund it. third, the "play nice" comment and taking onboard who it is suggests violence being used againt mexico. mexico would never be able to pay for such a wall anyway and if i was incharge, if this proposal was ever to happen i would not be paying come what may.

end of the road · 16-07-2015 06:31PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But sure even criminal cases dealt with here don't have to meet this "prove 100%" requirement. And in extradition cases, they certainly do not have to prove the case "100%" first...before taking him back to prove the case. Amongst EU member states for example, it is normally sufficient to show there is a European Arrest Warrant out, that's the basis on which we have have many parties extradited back to Ireland, both Irish citizens and citizens of other countries. Why on earth would we need to raise the bar and change both criminal law and the law of extradition for this person?

because were dealing with a country which thinks it can do what it likes, imposes its will and rules on everyone else while not obeying the same rules. in short, they cannot be trusted. also he has no chance of a fair trial and will be most likely found guilty even if not

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 06:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

because were dealing with a country which thinks it can do what it likes, imposes its will and rules on everyone else while not obeying the same rules. in short, they cannot be trusted. also he has no chance of a fair trial and will be most likely found guilty even if not

:pac:

end of the road · 16-07-2015 06:33PM

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Reasonable doubt here correct
He will also have his chance to protest and prove his innocence in court in the US
Thing is he knows he hasn't a leg to stand on .
As you said he would have a better chance here
Can't see him being tried here on evidence that is sitting in the US
Besides why should we carry the can for the goon
He knew what he was getting into . His condition is no excuse but it may make him less culpable than the others involved .
Either way he obviously has something to answer for and he should face the music regardless

because its our job as he commited any supposed crime here. and not doing so puts our jurisdiction and national security at risk. as the DPP haven't prosecuted the case and aren't going to, there is no music to face. unless he faces the supposed music here there is no music to face.

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 06:36PM

end of the road wrote: »

because its our job as he commited any supposed crime here. and not doing so puts our jurisdiction and national security at risk

Does one know all the charges ?

hatrickpatrick · 16-07-2015 06:41PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then why do the Americans want him ?

Because, as per the Wikipedia link I dropped a couple of posts back, they believe that anything which happens on the internet can be prosecuted un the United States.

Look at Kim Dotcom - he ran his website, Megaupload, as a company registered in New Zealand. He is wanted for extradition as this website allegedly violated US laws.
Eric Eoin Marques is allegedly the administrator of a hosting company which allowed people to host child porn. He lives in Ireland, his money was apparently stored in Russia. The Americans want to extradite him as well, for violating US laws.

None of these extraditions can even be considered remotely valid unless one first accepts that anything which happens on the internet anywhere in the world and violates US law, is within US jurisdiction. And the only way to justify that claim is to suggest that the internet itself counts, in its entirety, as US jurisdiction.

This is both ridiculous and extremely dangerous. It's the same mindset which gives the NSA its delusion that it has a legitimate right to spy on the communications of every internet user in the world.

Ranchu · 16-07-2015 06:48PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because, as per the Wikipedia link I dropped a couple of posts back, they believe that anything which happens on the internet can be prosecuted un the United States.

Look at Kim Dotcom - he ran his website, Megaupload, as a company registered in New Zealand. He is wanted for extradition as this website allegedly violated US laws.
Eric Eoin Marques is allegedly the administrator of a hosting company which allowed people to host child porn. He lives in Ireland, his money was apparently stored in Russia. The Americans want to extradite him as well, for violating US laws.

None of these extraditions can even be considered remotely valid unless one first accepts that anything which happens on the internet anywhere in the world and violates US law, is within US jurisdiction. And the only way to justify that claim is to suggest that the internet itself counts, in its entirety, as US jurisdiction.

This is both ridiculous and extremely dangerous. It's the same mindset which gives the NSA its delusion that it has a legitimate right to spy on the communications of every internet user in the world.

What if Singapore decides they own the internet and want to extradite the world for looking at porn!

OneOfThem · 16-07-2015 06:49PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Do tell.

Ah sure, go on so. You serve. Explain for me the relevant differences.

Means Of Escape · 16-07-2015 06:54PM

end of the road wrote: »

because its our job as he commited any supposed crime here. and not doing so puts our jurisdiction and national security at risk. as the DPP haven't prosecuted the case and aren't going to, there is no music to face. unless he faces the supposed music here there is no music to face.

If the US authorities have the ability to get evidence that can convict chancers like this guy then more power to them
The authorities here probably never heard of the guy til the extradition request landed on their desk

hatrickpatrick · 16-07-2015 06:55PM

Ranchu wrote: »

What if Singapore decides they own the internet and want to extradite the world for looking at porn!

Exactly. This is why we absolutely must not allow the US to claim jurisdiction over cases like these.

dreamers75 · 16-07-2015 07:05PM

SR facilitated illegal actions in the US, this chap helped he is an accomplice to the illegal acts.

The crime isnt "moderating an illegal forum" its supplying drugs etc, actual acts for which they have evidence of him being involved.

Fcuk him tbh

16-07-2015 07:09PM

end of the road wrote: »

because were dealing with a country which thinks it can do what it likes, imposes its will and rules on everyone else while not obeying the same rules. in short, they cannot be trusted. also he has no chance of a fair trial and will be most likely found guilty even if not

I'd imagine that argument would be laughed out of court.

We should change both criminal law and the law of extradition because America is a country that thinks it can do what it likes and can't be trusted? That would make as much sense, legally, as saying a fugitive could not be returned to Ireland because we can't even manage our economy.

end of the road · 16-07-2015 07:19PM

Means Of Escape wrote: »

If the US authorities have the ability to get evidence that can convict chancers like this guy then more power to them
The authorities here probably never heard of the guy til the extradition request landed on their desk

not more power to them at all. only those who are against the state would support this.

end of the road · 16-07-2015 07:21PM

dreamers75 wrote: »

SR facilitated illegal actions in the US, this chap helped he is an accomplice to the illegal acts.

The crime isnt "moderating an illegal forum" its supplying drugs etc, actual acts for which they have evidence of him being involved.

Fcuk him tbh

he's not. he was in ireland so irish law counts. i'd doubt they have evidence of him supplying drugs and even if they did its nothing to them.

darkpagandeath · 16-07-2015 07:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

not more power to them at all. only those who are against the state would support this.

So if the judge rules he is against the state ?

The US Think They Can Extradite Gary Davis

Comments